If Canon want to do the smart thing they will bet some money on Cinema EOS line. Where I am from the C300 has been hugely popular among production companies and broadcasters.

The main reason I think is that it bridged gap between the DSLR and the large sensor camcorders. If you have worked with a ENG camera, you know how a camera should feel and work, if you want to an effective tool.We want to use all our Canon glass with a large sensor, but the DSLR hassle can get tiredsome. The answer have been C300 for the most part.

If think Canon have a good chance to cement their position in this market if they make an effort with the Cinema EOS line.

On the other hand, if the 5d Mark IV is a complete game changer, it might turn out different, but I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet. .

The thing is, the market for video DSLRs and the market for the Cinema EOS cameras are not the same market. They never were. A dude may stretch his wallet to get a 5D to shoot some short films, but there was no way that guy was ever going to pony up $15 grand for a C300.

Literally all Canon had to do to own the micro budget marketplace was to take all of the existing components of a 5D and put them into a more video-centric ergonomic body, and throw in the Magic Lantern video features as software. That's it. That's what people have been begging Canon for these last four or five years. They didn't have to create new sensors or even 4k recording, any of that. But they never built it. Instead they came out with cameras that had most of those features but priced $10k above people's reach, so only actual production companies could afford it.

Now, even if Canon did come out with a Cinema 5D tomorrow, it would be too late. The tech has moved way beyond it, way beyond what even the Cinema EOS line is capable of, and for far less money. There isn't a single thing that the 5D or 7DII can do with video that isn't done better by somebody else, for the same price or less.

Sadly, it sounds like moving the 7Dii to video is more important to Canon.Very disappointed.

I have no idea why one would think this camera suggests "video is more important to Canon." Because honestly I see this camera as living proof that Canon actually couldn't care less about video. The video capabilities of this camera would have been interesting about four years ago. As it is now, for cinematographers, this camera is dead on arrival.

You're wrong - Canon cares a lot about video. Canon especially cares a lot about the folks in video that have money to spend. And Canon wants as much of that money as they can get (Canon is a corporation afterall.)

So why would Canon sell you a $1800 DSLR to do video when they have a $10000 video camera that they'd rather you buy instead?

You're basically on the right track, Dilbert. My guess is the 7D2's video will be optimized for producing excellent amateur video -- something mom & dad would be proud to show their child's grandparents. It should be easy to use, etc. It should have enough features to lure the some fraction into higher-end gear. Under no circumstances should it directly compete with their pro gear.

That's about right. Amateur video. At a time when I can pay that same dollar amount elsewhere for a camera that allows me to shoot professional looking video.

So why shouldn't they make a camera for less than $5k that competes with their +$10k pro gear? Because everyone else already is.

Sadly, it sounds like moving the 7Dii to video is more important to Canon.Very disappointed.

I have no idea why one would think this camera suggests "video is more important to Canon." Because honestly I see this camera as living proof that Canon actually couldn't care less about video. The video capabilities of this camera would have been interesting about four years ago. As it is now, for cinematographers, this camera is dead on arrival.

You're wrong - Canon cares a lot about video. Canon especially cares a lot about the folks in video that have money to spend. And Canon wants as much of that money as they can get (Canon is a corporation afterall.)

So why would Canon sell you a $1800 DSLR to do video when they have a $10000 video camera that they'd rather you buy instead?

z

I'm not wrong. If Canon actually cared about video they would make a camera worth buying for video. Because if Canon "cared" so much about that $10,000 camera they would rather I buy, I would suggest making one that isn't outclassed by half a dozen other camera manufacturers that are BETTER than Canon at or near the price point of a DSLR. The market is already there whether Canon wants it to be or not. Ever heard of Kodak? They were also a company that wanted to make as much money as possible. How successful were they?

I don't really care what Canon would rather sell me. I only care about what I want to buy and right now Canon isn't it. Their video tech is stuck in 2010 so I can take my wallet elsewhere and get far more bang for the buck.

Sadly, it sounds like moving the 7Dii to video is more important to Canon.Very disappointed.

I have no idea why one would think this camera suggests "video is more important to Canon." Because honestly I see this camera as living proof that Canon actually couldn't care less about video. The video capabilities of this camera would have been interesting about four years ago. As it is now, for cinematographers, this camera is dead on arrival.

I know that a 4x5 filter (4x5.65 really but that's the shorthand) is wide enough for the actual physical diameter of the lens, but not sure about the height. Of course, the image is 16x9 so the filter doesn't have to be as tall as it is wide. But is it tall enough that the entire field of view of the lenses will go through the filter and I won't see the edges.

We actually have Schneider 4x4 filters but that is just shy of 114mm and I'm not sure if they are wide enough. Because even though the physical housing of the lens is 114mm, I'm not sure if the filter needs to be that wide as well to cover the entire field of view of the lenses.

I'm less worried about the physical size than the field of view. I was wondering if anyone else has shot with these lenses and what size filters they used.

I'm going to be shooting a short film in a month and we're planning on renting a set of EOS CN-E cinema lenses but I've never worked with these lenses before. According to the specs they are all a diameter of 114mm.

Does anyone know if a standard matte box with 4x5" filters would be the sufficient size?

Side note/question... Has anyone had any experience with the cine and non-cine versions of the same lens? They're optically identical, but is there any build quality improvement on the cine version?

I'm looking at the 14/2.8 and the extra cost for the cine version would be worth it for a focus ring that isn't sloppy.

Not used the two versions of the same lenses, but I've used the 85mm next to non-cine photo lenses and it is a world of difference in ease of use. We have a 35mm lens at work that has the tiniest lens throw I've ever seen. I'm talking half inch turn that changes focal plan 10 feet. Pulling focus with that thing is a pain.

Sure, that sounds like a cool lens and all... but they already had a 14mm so I'm really not sure why this lens exists. Maybe they'll put a 15mm lens out next instead of the 50mm cine lens that is the glaring hole in their lineup.

Just this morning I was shooting video outside with the 60D. Generally speaking, 1/50 is the shutter speed you need to stick with which only leaves ISO and aperture that can be adjusted. Since even at ISO 100 your f/stop is going to be really high that means the only way to get down as low as you want is with ND filters. In a nutshell they are like putting sunglasses on a lens.

So the settings I used were:

1/50 shutterISO 160 (I only use multiples of 160, or "native ISOs", but that is a different topic)ND .9 filterf/5.6

Like I said, to get down to f/1.8 in broad daylight without drastically increasing the shutter speed is going to take a crap ton of ND.

... unless of course you use Magic Lantern :-) ... but the swivel screen on the 60d definitely is a plus for video amongst other things as landscape/macro tripod work.

T3i has a swivel screen and is the cheapest with equal image quality. Magic lantern takes care of ISO options. For stills I'd take the other two, but for video the T3i is the best bang for the buck. All decent options, though!

I know this probably sounds like a minor quibble, but I can't stand that I have to hold down a button with my thumb while turning a dial to change my f/stop on the T3i. To me it is worth the extra cash just to get the better form of the 60D body. But to each their own, of course.

I would like to add something I read in another thread about the 6D and this filter that is worth pointing out here.

That video is presented by a company that is selling a filter designed to "fix" moire and aliasing. So who is to say they didn't make the "before" video look as poor as possible in order to make their filter seem like an indispensable item? The 6D may very well look that lousy by default. How can I tell? I've never used one. But there is also no way to tell that they didn't tweak the camera settings to make it look like garbage just to sell their filter.

So that video alone is not sufficient to judge how good or bad the 6D really is.

Actually, that is a very good point that I had not considered. Obviously, they have an vested interest in showing how much better it is with their filter than without and tweaking the camera to make it look as poor as possible would only help them. That just reinforces the fact that it is hard to judge a camera without getting your hands on one as opposed to only have online videos to judge. So I guess I will reserve final judgement on the 6D for now.

That said, I'd get a t3i, used Mark II, Mark III, or C100 for video if you need Canon.

A T3i? Meh... I think that wouldn't be a good choice. A 60D or 7D would be better. Same sensor, but with better hardware and firmware wrapped around it. 7Ds are tanks and the 60D still has the flip out screen. Both of them have better ISO options as well.

I use DSLRs almost exclusively for video so I really want the 6D to be my camera of choice but the moire really bothers me. I haven't used it personally so, unfortunately, the only way for me to analyze its performance is through videos posted online. This is not ideal as I often have no idea what camera settings were used, and there is always the possibility that the image is further affected when uploaded online.

I have used the MkII, 7D, and 60D (MkIII a little but not enough to say I am familiar with it), and I find the moire/aliasing in those cameras to be perfectly acceptable for my needs. But, based solely on what I've seen online, the 6D looks worse than those cameras. All I can find is people stating how much worse the 6D is than the MkIII, which I should expect for $1000 difference. But I still can't find anyone with an informed, personal, experience with the 6D compared to those other DSLRs that can tell me whether or not the moire is the same as, better, or worse.

Based purely on footage watched online, and not personal experience, I may have come to the conclusion that the 6D out of the box is not very usable for video.

Sigh. What exactly do you mean by not very usable? As in you literally can't use it? Perhaps your comment about out of the box alludes to a situation before you've attached a lens to the camera (in which case - yes you wouldn't get usable video)? Or as in the 6D suffers from the same issues as the 5dm2/7d/60d/600d in terms of moire and aliasing?

Because plenty of people made stunning work with all those other cameras - the video is a long way from unusable. Yes you have be careful to work around the camera's weaknesses in particular circumstances. And yes if given the choice between a camera that you have to do this with and another body where the same issues are far better managed (5dm3 or 1dx) then choosing the latter (more expensive) model might be worthwhile - especially if you're using the kit to make a living as a videographer.

But calling the 6D's video not very usable isn't very true.

You really don't need to insult my intelligence by asking if I was referring to whether the camera had a lens on it or not. By "not very usable" I mean exactly that. I wouldn't use it. Or not a stock, out of the box 6D as opposed to one that had an AA filter installed such as the one showcased in the video link I provided. Did you look at the video in that link? There wasn't a single thing it was pointed at that didn't strobe like crazy. I have probably shot a few hundred hours of footage with MkIIs, 7Ds, and 60Ds in both narrative and documentary settings and never gotten footage affected by moire and aliasing like that.

In page 3 of this thread I specifically asked if anyone out there had experience shooting on those cameras AND the 6D and could comment exactly on how the moire and aliasing compared. Nobody did. I would still prefer to hear from someone who has. Absent that, I am only able to look at footage online (not ideal) and draw my own conclusions. If you have personal experience that would shed light on this for me I would love to hear it.